I've been thinking - and reading - about ideals and politics again, and coming to clarify some of my own thoughts. Ken's question about what I would define as 'progressive politics' may have started the thought processes rolling, but much of this is made up of scattered pieces which have been in my ruminations (usually in the shower, or while walking to work), for years.

Plus a spark: a chance link followed, to the entry on Libertarian socialism in a subbranch of Wikipedia. And while I wouldn't necessarily say that this precise movement would cover me, it does a far better job than most.

The word "Libertarian" - capital-L or small - carries all sorts of connotations in North America which are, apparently, not necessarily the case in Europe. It's the European definiton I would agree with more, which makes up the article above; closer to anarchism than to American libertarianism.

The distinction comes down to one of economics. In the social sphere, both groups agree that the only behaviours which should be prohibited in any way have to do with violence against the person, or rights, of another citizen. The government should stay out of the bedroom, the wedding hall (traditional or Heinleinian), the choirloft and so forth, thank you very much. It's in the economic sphere that it gets tricky.

Libertarians tend to argue that the right to property is a fundamental right. This generally ties itself to an extreme form of market capitalism, wherein there should be no tax of any kind; if I'm interested in roads, schools, and so forth, I should be making those decisions freely, not by coercion. Ken points out, quite rightly, that the state which meets these criteria best in today's world is Somalia; closer to home, I have a problem with a regime in which the decision to (for instance) allow my offspring to never have to work a day in their lives again, while spitting at the feet of beggars in the street, is not only supported but in fact self-supporting... it works through positive feedback to become the dominant behaviour. Enron Capitalism conditions itself into existence.

This wouldn't happen if we were all moral, rational, and well-informed citizens, but we're not, and this particular form of imperfection is one we see an awful lot of, today. Halliburton and NAFTA Chapter 11 don't fit well in MY ideal world - how 'bout yours?

Libertarian socialism, in various branches and various ways, suggests that the "right of the individual to property" is at the root of this sort of thing. Georgism and geolibertarianism contend, for instance, that specifically the Earth and all its natural resources (including living space and land, as well as other things like the airwaves in radio) belong to humanity as a whole [or at least to the society under discussion], not properly to individuals at all. That it is up to humanity to decide through whatever social means - variations on democracy are usually suggested - how they should be used and shared. That the assertion of a right to "property" over land - no matter how you assert it, including via capital - is an example of coercion by the individual, robbing the commonweal to pay themselves. The fundamental right of the individual, in this picture, is to a voice in the decision of how we graze the village's cows - not to a chunk of the
village green.

I'm good with that.

Some of the things which tend to get associated under the same umbrellas are less up my creek, though, but that's not the focus of my rambling here. My thought of the day takes the idea of "what is the more appropriate fundamental right of the individual?" in a different direction.

Posit this instead. The most fundamental right of the individual is the right to a maximized chance to actualize their desires. It's a bit of a mouthful; call it the right to opportunity. This is the right which we all instinctively feel to have been abrogated, when we envision the children of an Old Oil Money family next to the children of a Ruwandan refugee. It's not even that material goods are being inequitably distributed; the refugee children might not need those, to be happy. It's that the opportunity is unequal. And that offends us - at least, it offends me, and it does so greatly.

I think this is why the issue of an inheritance tax is such a hot-button item. Adherents of the right to property hold it - rightfully, in this worldview - as a great ill, that the state should appropriate your property for the non-crime of having died, and abrogate your right to do with it as you will. But instinctive adherents of the right to opportunity see it as a measure which can, under the current imperfect system, make progress toward their ideal world. Which inserts a negative feedback mechanism into the positive feedback loop of privilege. Negative feedback is the bones and marrow of homeostasis; homeostatic systems have a massive long-term record for survival and achievement, compared to passive equilibria... starting with life over unlife, and going from there.

What does this imply for social organization? That, I'm not sure of; that is, it seems intuitively clear what sorts of societies would give all their members high levels of opportunity, but it's not clear by what mechanism this maximum is calculated, achieved, and maintained. A crude mathematical example: Abe has one apple, Betty has no apples, and Craig has five apples. We refuse to impose statist controls on the situation; the laws by which they live should by themselves tend the situation toward a maximized degree of fruitiness for all - two apples each.

What kind of rules to live by those might be, I don't know. The same Wikipedia derivative discussed (from both pro- and con- viewpoints) libertarian socialism as frequently subscribing to a pragmatic, or organic, view of this... "No, we don't know what laws will work, what the society will look like. Same way that a scientist doesn't know what his numbers or laws will be, in advance. We just want to enter into it with our eyes open, like scientists, instead of like dogmatics who would make the world fit their theories. Political theory to date has always put the carriage before the horse in this regard...". Which does seem like the only reasonable response, at the same time as it is deeply dissatisfying and feels like a cop-out.

But a good start would be a willingness to put that optimization process ahead of other ideologies - like property right and centralization - which impede progress in that direction. Again it seems like a utopian perspective; wouldn't this need perfect humans, too? I'm not sure, though. I guess just because we haven't ever really seen it in action, apart from a few exceptions (the Spanish Civil War, the sixties, the Basque success story of Mondragón)... and even those hewed to other versions of principle. I am inclined to guess that yes, it'd have its own problems... but that to switch to pursuing this ideology, over an ideology of property right, would be a healthy move no matter what. We may not know which is which yet, but we've seen a lot of the good points of capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit in this world... and also a lot of the bad, and IMO the latter is on the rise. It's like the concept is a bit tapped out; the good have reinforced themselves as far as they may, the bad continue to positively reinforce themselves to the detriment of civilization.

Say we gave a society based on the right to opportunity a try for a few decades; never mind how we might accomplish the switch. It'll probably decay, and show its bad sides to us; if we're unlucky (Soviet communism) it'll happen sooner, if we're lucky (Mondragón collectivism) it may take a while. But the point is that we, as an adult species, must perhaps learn a mature attitude toward social systems. In no other sphere do we expect perfection on tap; we expect attempts to fail, but in failing, show us what does work, and then to create new ideas based on that wisdom gained. (We may find that both "right to property" and "right to opportunity" are both misphrasings of some more fundamental, intuitively satisfying, and fulfilling human right, and backtrack a bit; who knows.) The Eric who might write a follow-up to this piece, after two decades of living under opportunity economics, wouldn't be the same guy who's writing now. So even if it might have flaws we don't see...

...I'd try it.

Okay. Enough rambling. The point stands. The floor is open.